In her new best-seller Ann Coulter breaks with the politicallycorrect history of the civil rights movement by openlycriticizing Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

The always provocative Coulter makes the case that Kingsembrace of mass street protests, specifically breaking the lawby staging marches without permits and gaining public sympathyby purposely putting children in the way of vicious dogs andblasts from power water hoses used by rabid segregationists, isa prime example of how liberals throughout history get their wayby using angry, inflammatory mob behavior.

Coulter writes in her book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob isEndangering America, that Martin Luther King Jr. ...usedimages in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause,deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violentconfrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene BullConnor, the Birmingham sheriff who was known to be easilyprovoked to brutality and violence to enforce racial segregation.

She spoke with me as she was writing because I am the author ofseveral books on the civil rights movement, including Eyes onthe Prize  Americas Civil Rights Years. And she usesquotations from my best-selling biography of Thurgood Marshall,the liberal legal giant who became first black justice of theU.S. Supreme Court. Marshall, like Coulter, was a critic ofKings tactics.

Thurgood Marshall had always disdained Kings methods, callinghim an opportunist and first rate rabble-rouser, Coulterargues in her book. Indeed, when asked about Kings suggestionthat street protests could help advance desegregation, Marshallreplied that school desegregation was mens work and should notbe entrusted to children. King, he said, was a boy on a manserrand.

You have to give Coulter points for shrewdly using the words ofone black liberal civil rights icon to indict another liberalblack liberal civil rights icon. She has a conservative agendaand she is a world-class provocateur who knows how to inflameher liberal critics.

Coulter and I disagree most of the time, especially on herregular use of harsh, partisan hyperbolic language to caricaturepeople. Her tirades against liberals get lots of media attentionand sell books but they overshadow the serious insights she hasinto American history. And when Ann is right, Ann can bedevastatingly right.

In any case, Marshall worked to achieve racial equality byending laws that discriminated against Americans in schools, inplaygrounds, housing, on juries and at work. And he told me overthe course of months of interviews of his differences with King.I used to have a lot of fights with Martin about his thetheory.

Marshall said in one interview as we discussed Kings streetprotest tactics. I didnt believe in that. I thought you hadthe right to disobey the law and you have the right to go tojail for it. In the same interview, Marshall conceded that Kinghad tremendous influence. He came up at the right time, hesaid. I think he was great  as a leader. As an organizer, hewasnt worth st..He was a great speaker...but as for gettingthe work done, he was not too good at that All he did was dumpall his legal work on us (the NAACP) including the bills. Andthat was all right with him so long as he didnt have to pay thebills.

In those interviews I learned that there were times whenMarshall deeply resented Kings fame  particularly when MartinLuther King Jr. Day was made a federal holiday.

The left often has a simplistic view of the civil rightsmovement as monolithic. The truth is that Marshall and Kingrepresented very different approaches to ending the bitterhistory of segregation. Marshall favored using the law whileKing favored bold demonstrations to gain media attention.

History tells us that both the demonstrators and the lawyersplayed vital roles in bringing about the end of segregation inAmerica. But Marshalls more conservative view of how to createlasting social change is often forgotten because he never wore adashiki or patronized the idea of race riots as helpful toachieving racial equality. He was seen by many of the 60sactivists as a boring, law and order, establishment judge whodeeply believed in the Constitution, loved America and was asocial conservative.

How is it boring to win the landmark Supreme Court decision toend school segregation  the Brown decision  and break barriersas the first black Solicitor General and Supreme Court Justice?

Coulters brand of vituperative political commentary hassometimes poisoned our political discourse over years. She andher fellow provocateurs on the far right are featuredprominently in my upcoming book Muzzled: the Assault on HonestDebate. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. On thisone, Coulter has her history exactly right and that is why theleft is screaming.

Post by Ronny KochIn her new best-seller Ann Coulter breaks with the politicallycorrect history of the civil rights movement by openlycriticizing Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.The always provocative Coulter makes the case that King’sembrace of mass street protests, specifically breaking the lawby staging marches without permits and gaining public sympathyby purposely putting children in the way of vicious dogs andblasts from power water hoses used by rabid segregationists, isa prime example of how liberals throughout history get their wayby using angry, inflammatory mob behavior.Coulter writes in her book “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob isEndangering America,” that “Martin Luther King Jr. ...usedimages in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause,deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violentconfrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’Connor,” the Birmingham sheriff who was known to be easilyprovoked to brutality and violence to enforce racial segregation.She spoke with me as she was writing because I am the author ofseveral books on the civil rights movement, including “Eyes onthe Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years.” And she usesquotations from my best-selling biography of Thurgood Marshall,the liberal legal giant who became first black justice of theU.S. Supreme Court. Marshall, like Coulter, was a critic ofKing’s tactics.“Thurgood Marshall had always disdained King’s methods, callinghim an ‘opportunist’ and ‘first rate rabble-rouser,’” Coulterargues in her book. “Indeed, when asked about King’s suggestionthat street protests could help advance desegregation, Marshallreplied that school desegregation was men’s work and should notbe entrusted to children. King, he said, was ‘a boy on a man’serrand.’”You have to give Coulter points for shrewdly using the words ofone black liberal civil rights icon to indict another liberalblack liberal civil rights icon. She has a conservative agendaand she is a world-class provocateur who knows how to inflameher liberal critics.Coulter and I disagree most of the time, especially on herregular use of harsh, partisan hyperbolic language to caricaturepeople. Her tirades against liberals get lots of media attentionand sell books but they overshadow the serious insights she hasinto American history. And when Ann is right, Ann can bedevastatingly right.In any case, Marshall worked to achieve racial equality byending laws that discriminated against Americans in schools, inplaygrounds, housing, on juries and at work. And he told me overthe course of months of interviews of his differences with King.“I used to have a lot of fights with Martin about his thetheory.”Marshall said in one interview as we discussed King’s streetprotest tactics. “I didn’t believe in that. I thought you hadthe right to disobey the law and you have the right to go tojail for it.” In the same interview, Marshall conceded that Kinghad tremendous influence. “He came up at the right time,” hesaid. “I think he was great – as a leader. As an organizer, hewasn’t worth s—t..He was a great speaker...but as for gettingthe work done, he was not too good at that…All he did was dumpall his legal work on us (the NAACP) including the bills. Andthat was all right with him so long as he didn’t have to pay thebills.”In those interviews I learned that there were times whenMarshall deeply resented King’s fame – particularly when MartinLuther King Jr. Day was made a federal holiday.The left often has a simplistic view of the civil rightsmovement as monolithic. The truth is that Marshall and Kingrepresented very different approaches to ending the bitterhistory of segregation. Marshall favored using the law whileKing favored bold demonstrations to gain media attention.History tells us that both the demonstrators and the lawyersplayed vital roles in bringing about the end of segregation inAmerica. But Marshall’s more conservative view of how to createlasting social change is often forgotten because he never wore adashiki or patronized the idea of race riots as helpful toachieving racial equality. He was seen by many of the 60’sactivists as a boring, law and order, establishment judge whodeeply believed in the Constitution, loved America and was asocial conservative.How is it boring to win the landmark Supreme Court decision toend school segregation – the Brown decision – and break barriersas the first black Solicitor General and Supreme Court Justice?Coulter’s brand of vituperative political commentary hassometimes poisoned our political discourse over years. She andher fellow provocateurs on the far right are featuredprominently in my upcoming book “Muzzled: the Assault on HonestDebate.” But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. On thisone, Coulter has her history exactly right and that is why theleft is screaming.http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/16/is-ann-coulter-right-about-civil-rights-movement/#ixzz1VxXXbwZs